Post navigation

It takes one to know one

Not too long ago, someone created a Tumblr blog called Nice Guys of OkCupid. This blog featured profiles from OkCupid from so-called nice guys. These were men who could not get dates even though, they felt, they were the good guys. The blog is down now, probably because posting the profiles violated OkCupid’s terms of service and copyright, and also because doing things like this and this legally counts as character defamation.

While some of the comments from the profiles were hateful rants against women, plenty were simply justified complaints about not being able to find at date. Of course, some feminists do not see it that way. Hugo Schwyzer graces us with his opinion about these men:

What’s on offer isn’t just an opportunity to snort derisively at the socially awkward; it’s a chance to talk about the very real problem of male sexual entitlement. The great unifying theme of the curated profiles is indignation. These are young men who were told that if they were nice, then, as Laurie Penny puts it, they feel that women “must be obliged to have sex with them.” The subtext of virtually all of their profiles, the mournful and the bilious alike, is that these young men feel cheated. Raised to believe in a perverse social/sexual contract that promised access to women’s bodies in exchange for rote expressions of kindness, these boys have at least begun to learn that there is no Magic Sex Fairy. And while they’re still hopeful enough to put up a dating profile in the first place, the Nice Guys sabotage their chances of ever getting laid with their inability to conceal their own aggrieved self-righteousness.

One cannot call it self-righteousness if all the men are doing is repeating exactly what they have been told to do. One cannot also claim that all these men and boys believe that expressions of kindness should lead to sex. Most of them are not even complaining about not getting sex; they cannot even get a date.

Yet beyond that, who would not feel upset that all the cues they have been told women will respond to do not work for them? If you do all the steps and still end up home alone without a date, who would not begin to ask if there is something wrong with themselves or if women are not being honest about the type of men they want?

That thought does not occur to Schwyzer. Instead, he writes:

Besides the near-universal sense that they’ve been unjustly defrauded, the great commonality among these Nice Guys is their contempt for women’s non-sexual friendship. They rage about being “friendzoned,” and complain about the hours spent listening to women without being given so much as a hand job in return for their investment. Niceness, they make clear over and over again, is a mere tactic, a tool that they were promised would work to give them access to women’s bodies. Their anger, in other words, is that their own deception didn’t work as they had hoped. It’s a monumental overask to expect women to be gentle with the egos of men who only feigned friendship in order to get laid.

Except it is not clear they feigned friendship in order to get laid. The current social narrative is that women want sensitive men, men in touch with their feelings who will listen to every minor, trivial complaint women have. Men are told, almost exclusively by women, that this is the way to women’s hearts. If you want women to even begin to think about dating you, then you better become their friend first, not just ask them out on a date.

So this is what countless men and boys do. They befriend women and girls, hoping that all their cues are read properly and the girl will be willing to take it to the next step. However, many women and girls have no intention of dating the guy, and instead of telling him that so he can take his efforts elsewhere, they allow him to continue on in the pointless hope that she will change her mind.

Let us be clear: few people are so blind that they cannot tell who is interested in them. In most instances of people missing the cues, they miss them because they have no interest in person. Even then, someone around them tends to notice the other person’s affection and mentions to the admired. It is cruel to let someone think they have a chance when they do not, and plenty of people are willing to do that.

However, the true insensitivity of Schwyzer’s comments is that he appears to think these men reach this point after one rejection. If this were a one-off thing, it would be understandable to mock the guy. But it is not. Many of these men and boys are constantly “frienzoned”, and over time the pain of being routinely rejected adds up. They are doing everything they were told to do to attract women, and not only is not working, but the people rejecting them then turn around and complain about not being able to find a nice guy.

This would be akin to a writer wanting to be published by a certain magazine writing exactly what the editor says she wants only be resoundingly rejected each time and then having that editor complain that she cannot find anyone to write the kinds of stories she wants to publish.

That would make anyone angry, but it more so would make them wonder what is so wrong with their writing. Likewise, the rejection these men go through after following all the rules not only hurts them, but also makes them wonder what is so fundamentally wrong with them as a person that nobody wants to be with them.

The feminist response to that is “Everything”. Instead of showing any compassion to these men, feminists mock them, and Schwyzer thinks that is the right move:

The plea to replace mockery with understanding is a familiar one; it’s what lies behind the calls to stop using the word “creep,” because men find it shaming. But in the case of Nice Guys of OkCupid, disdain isn’t rooted in meanness as much as it is in self-preservation. While only a small percentage of these guys may be prone to imminent violence, virtually all of them insist, in one way or another, that women owe them. Mockery, in this instance, isn’t so much about being cruel as it is about publicly rejecting the Nice Guys’ sense of entitlement to both sex and sympathy.

So the way to deal with people who suffer from low self-esteem, who feel utterly worthless and unlikeable, and think that there must be something fundamentally wrong with them because no one will love them is to mock them? To make them feel worse than they already do? And when one of these men hurts or kills himself (which none of the feminists taking shots at them will care about), what then? Is driving them to the brink really the best thing we should do?

How about teaching them that they should not seek self-validation in other people? Why not teach boys and men that they do not need a woman to prove their worth as a person or as a man? Why not teach boys and men that they should seek out women and girls worthy of the love they have to offer, not those who will judge them by their appearances or social awkwardness? Why not teach girls and women to be clear in their rejection and not leave guys they know are interested in them hanging just because it is beneficial to them to have a “break glass in case of emergency” friendzoned guy in waiting?

We could do that or we could do this:

So how should we respond, when, as Penny writes, “sexist dickwaddery puts photos on the internet and asks to be loved?” The short answer is that a lonely dickwad is still a dickwad; the fact that these guys are in genuine pain makes them more rather than less likely to mistreat the women they encounter. A rage rooted in anguish is no less dangerous because it comes from the Great Big Sad Place. For that reason alone, we shouldn’t make men’s pain into women’s problem to solve.

Let us get one thing clear: if these guys were as big a threat to women as Schwyzer claims, there would be a lot of dead women right now. There are not because, wait for it, these are nice guys. Even in the midst of their pain the most outrage they can muster is to angrily tell women how great a guy they are and how much it sucks that none of them seem to notice. Certainly there are men who are less polite, just as there are plenty of women who moan about men choosing the pretty girl over them (which coincidentally gets nothing but feminist appraisal). However, most nice guys are just that: nice. As much as they are hurting, they do not take it out on anyone but themselves.

It takes a grand amount of antipathy and jackassery to call someone in pain a “dickwad” just for voicing their pain. At the end of the day, that is all these guys did. They did not attack anyone, did not assault anyone, did not harass anyone, or even specifically seek anyone out. They simply complained about their lot in life. Ally Fogg calls this bullying, stating, “I think it is not only immoral, but potentially dangerous to place them in the 21st Century equivalent of the medieval stocks to be mocked, abused and humiliated.”

But is not just bullying; it is abuse. Make no mistake about that because that is clearly Schwyzer’s intent. He wants to hurt their feelings so he can “disabuse them, once and for all, of their insistence that in a just and democratic society, hot young pussy ought to be distributed equally to every Tom, Harry, and Dick who demonstrates a minimal level of civility”, despite few of them thinking anything of the sort.

He ends by stating:

What the Nice Guys of OkCupid need far more than fresh shaves and new shirts, however, are two essential reminders. No one is owed love. And no one who uses friendship as a strategy for sex has the right to complain if he ends up with neither.

Ironically, this comment comes from a Christian man. My understanding of Christian beliefs is that everyone is entitled to love, no matter who they are or what they have done. If what Schwyzer means is romantic love, then he has a point. No one is obligated to love you in that way. However, it really hurts when no one does, especially not the person you love. That may not be something Schwyzer understands because as an attractive man with a history of womanizing, he has never had that problem.

As for using friendship are a strategy for sex, it would be fair to trash it if it were clear that the person doing that were only interested in sex. However, it is hard to make that argument to a man seeking a relationship with women when women themselves tell men that the way to relationship status is a strong friendship.

Unless they’re a woman, of course.Where all the derision for all those “women over X age” who write long rambling articles about how they can’t find a “good man” to marry? These people do have a point, but it’s shrouded by so much frigging hypocrisy that I don’t even care about it anymore.

Remember: These are the same people who will, on one hand, insist that women have every right not to engage in any sexual act (true) but on the other will call you a misogynist if you don’t want to enage in oral with a woman, and a homophobe if you’d really rather not have things put up your anus.

Hugo’s words only ring partially true for some “nice guys”, I think he is quite out of touch with many many men in that position though. On a site like Jezebel though it looks like he is writing to pander to an audience, an audience that has very little empathy towards males it seems.

I think what you said of how men are told to be friends first to get the date vs asking women out on a date is an excellent point and is one that I’ve heard some women complain of before. They felt the man only became their friend to “get in their panties”, yet it’s how we’re often told to be a woman’s friend, be nice to her and WIN HER HEART.

Of course there are men who feel entitled to sex for friendship, they’re idiots and rightly get criticized. There are many men who are not feeling entitled, but feel despair at how hard it is to even find a date. There is frustration that women, regardless of looks, will get more chances to have any kind of consenting sex (as in if they lower their standards and accept casual sex) than the men will get. It may not be sex they want, it’s still a chance though at something vs nothing. A bit more empathy would go a long way in solving half this shit, for both genders. I’ve seen this despair in both genders!

Feminists who whine about “nice guys” must really think that these people are the dumbest people ever. I mean, they think that these people only act friendly to women to get into their pants, and after that, who knows? Maybe go to another woman because they assume that these guys don’t really care about them.

In other words, they think that the guys are willing to waste months or even years just for a shag? Who is dumb enough for that? That’s an insane amount of investment just to get a HJ or a BJ.

Newsflash girls: you ain’t worth that much.

Yeah, you may be attractive and this may give you value for sex, but no man is going to waste months or years of his life just for one sexual encounter. If people are willing to spend that amount of time with you, it’s because they want you for more than sex, it’s because they like you and want to be your lover.

If they only wanted sex, they’d hire escorts or hookers. If they spend so much time on you, it’s because they care.

Men are not allowed to have standards; standards are something that women exercise at their discretion because they’re the ones who are entitled to romantic attention. Or so goes the modern feminist rhetoric.

The “nice guy” situation is a classic double-bind. GIVEN that men would like to have romantic relationships, they are first told “be manly, confident, and aggressive.” Such men are quickly labeled jerks by the female community (which still gleefully sleeps with them). So they’re given a second message: “be NICE.” And then, the men who follow this program are likewise condemned by the female community.

Man; “Wait a minute–if I’m looking for love and act macho, I’m a jerk. And if I’m looking for love and act considerate and polite, I’m still a jerk. So how am I supposed to look for love?”
Woman: “You’re not. Dont you get it yet?”
Man:

Wait, wait, wait: Hugo still writes for Jezebel? And feministe still links to it? ‘Cause I remember Feministe having a huge hupla about not giving rapists a place to talk.

Hugo, took advantage of his students. He has written articles in favor of people who sexually assaulted 11 year old boys. He has blamed 11 year old boys for their own assault. He tried to kill his ex-girlfriend and still hasn’t turned himself into the police.

Exactly right. The whole “nice guys are assholes” meme is built on the dehumanizing assumption that men and boys aren’t capable of emotions other than lust and rage.* The idea that men and boys are full-blown human beings who can actually feel affection, and find rejection and unrequited love painful, is completely foreign to the whole discourse.

The usual response is something like, “No, it’s the patriarchy that says men are just unfeeling brutes!” Well, fine; then most actually existing feminism IS “patriarchy.” This sort of shit says far more about the people who engage in it than all of their empty promises about feminism freeing men from oppressive traditional gender roles ever could.

Archy: “Hugo’s words only ring partially true for some “nice guys”, I think he is quite out of touch with many many men in that position though. On a site like Jezebel though it looks like he is writing to pander to an audience, an audience that has very little empathy towards males it seems.”

Please don’t be so kind to Hugo, Archy.

Have you forgotten?

1. He believed an 11 year old victim of sexual abuse to be at fault.

2. He cuckholded a man into supporting a child that wasn’t the poor man’s own in the first place (the article should be on The Good Men Project somewhere)

3. He nearly killed his own girlfriend.

Hugo should be relegated to the the nether regions of the world and left to rot. He has about as much valid opinions on gender issues as Amanda Marccotte, Andrea Dworkin, and supporters of the Scum Manifesto.

John Markley on January 7, 2013 at 8:34 pm said:Exactly right. The whole “nice guys are assholes” meme is built on the dehumanizing assumption that men and boys aren’t capable of emotions other than lust and rage.* The idea that men and boys are full-blown human beings who can actually feel affection, and find rejection and unrequited love painful, is completely foreign to the whole discourse.

And yet history is replete with examples of emotional outpouring by men in so many diverse ways. There is such power to a man’s tears that others will turn away rather than confront their reality.

I believe men do feel anger and rage when they are nice and it is not received. How this has been construed is beyond me.

Feminist fail to understand several things.

1) Men (and both really) tend to be extra nice to someone they’re interested due to the attractive they have. It is not egalitarian, in the sense that people are nice to everyone equally. Sure, people should be nice to everyone, but most people are nicer to those they have feelings for. This isn’t conscious but just something that happens. When you care about someone you are willing to go out of your way for them then other people. It doesn’t make you a bad person.

2) Because of that, there is a hope and/or expectation for sex because of the hope that that person will see such qualities and value you as a person. Does this mean that the person will get sex just because they want it? No. But everyone has expectation that their niceness that people want nice people and they will have sex. It isn’t that they aren’t being genuinely nice, because they are. Why wouldn’t they be nice to someone that they’re interested in? But rather they have sexual feelings, and due to attraction, they do hope to have sex.

This seems so simple, and yet Feminist fail to understand that it is a natural to want something, regardless of whether or not you get or not (or deserve it), because of your attraction to the said person.

P.S. Also I keep hearing this about Hugo attempting to kill his girlfriend. I’m starting to hate for his anti white male bullshit, but if he did attempt to kill his girlfriend, why is he not in jail? I find no legitimate sources about these things that Hugo have done

Schwyzer posted the account himself on his own blog, and latter reprinted elsewhere. He edited his original post to remove passages before deleting both versions of the story. However, you can still find some copies of what he wrote around the internet.

As for why he is not in jail, I am not sure about that. Confessing to attempted murder is more than enough to be arrested on, however, without a cooperating victim I think it would be hard for the case to go forward. I am not familiar enough with that part of the law to be certain, though.

The article writer used a lot of projection to imply we feel “entitled” and “owed”. The writer also downgraded seeking a relationship to just wanting sex, which is another bigoted stereotype about men that I’m sick of being pushed. That’s not where the frustration comes from. It comes from the fact that my profile says exactly what I believe, which just so happens to be what women claim to want too. Long-term relationship? check. No drug abuse? check. Not into hookups? check. Same long-term goals with things like children? check. Similar hobbies? Similar books, movies, and music? check. Don’t send short or horny messages? check. Don’t post shirtless pics? check. All of these things in common, and not a single one of them sends me a message or replies to a message. Not a single one in two years. I can only assume I must be doing something wrong. They claim to be sick of guys playing games, and I’ve never been a player. They say they’re tired of cheaters, and I’ve never cheated. They say they’re tired of guys only wanting “one thing”, and I’ve never wanted just one thing. I’ve wanted a long-term relationship for as long as I can remember, probably imagining my wedding as much as little girls are stereotyped to, and I’m messaging women who want the same. But instead, they continue dating the same types of guys they complain about. The same types of guys who will leave them when she gets pregnant. The same types of guys that will abuse them, or flake out at the first sign of commitment. So yeah, I’m a nice guy, and I’m frustrated. Either I’m doing something terribly wrong, or most of these women are lying, posting who they want to be rather than who they are currently, or playing a game of their own. For a decade of dating site usage, I’ve felt it was the former, but with the recent onslaught of prejudice and projecting on “nice guys”, I’m thinking it’s the latter.

I also don’t know why we’re just supposed to take a hint when we don’t get a reply. If a woman messaged me with three paragraphs (hah!), and I was not interested, I would reply so that they don’t have to wonder. It’s just the respectful thing to do rather than keep them hanging. If they asked what was wrong, I would not accuse her of being butthurt or passive aggressive, I’d tell her why and suggest ways to improve herself. Given that not a single woman in years of OkCupid use, as well as other websites, has had the common decency to do this… it’s a given that nice guys are going to be frustrated. Given that according to our profiles, we have the same ideas of a relationship, the same long-term goals, the same love of travel and books, the same everything, and then they go ahead and date guys in non-serious relationships instead… I just don’t know anymore.

When I was in the nuclear industry, I had to take the MMPI test, which is a 500+ question test full of things like “I am happy with my life” in which you circle yes or no on the scantron. I missed 4 questions according to them, and they made me see a local psychiatrist to give me the go or no-go. One of the questions that I “missed” was “I am happy with my sex life”. I circled no. I have no sex life. I have no relationship. I would love a relationship. The correct answer is “yes”. You’re supposed to be happy with it. The psychiatrist, who was about 26, attractive, and probably never had a problem finding a date in her life didn’t understand that just because you want a sex life doesn’t mean you get one. We went back and forth for about 5 minutes on that question and she was confused that involuntary celibacy exists. I too was caught off guard, because it was so obvious to me that I never had to put it in words before. I worked out awkward answers like “Well, it takes two…”, and she just kept giving me this look like the concept never occurred to her that lonely men exist; we’re not all Alphas with game. It’s crap like this that gets perpetuated about men that makes me want to go to med-school or something and open up a chain of health clinics for men, with a psychiatrist on staff that understands men beyond “video games” and “violence”.

Actually, on the matter, I can’t really disapprove of Nice Guys Of OkCupid itself. While a looooad of feminists are all gung-ho about how anyone who calls themselves a “nice guy” and “can’t understand why women don’t return their feelings” or whatever, the tumblr blog itself wasn’t actually about that. It was, plan and simply, about people who call themselves nice guys but in the same profile reveal something extremely asshole-y about themselves.

I mean, sometimes the asshole parts were a stretch, but I can’t fault it for that. Point is, it never went for the low-hanging mockery fruit of “Anyone who calls themselves a nice guy and wonders why women won’t go out with him is just a jerk”.

“I mean, sometimes the asshole parts were a stretch, but I can’t fault it for that. ”

Why can’t you fault it for that? If, as you claim, the blog is actually “about people who call themselves nice guys but in the same profile reveal something extremely asshole-y about themselves,” the fact that some of its targets AREN’T assholes, much less ” extremely asshole-y,” is one hell of a flaw.

“So yeah, I’m a nice guy, and I’m frustrated. Either I’m doing something terribly wrong, or most of these women are lying, posting who they want to be rather than who they are currently, or playing a game of their own. For a decade of dating site usage, I’ve felt it was the former, but with the recent onslaught of prejudice and projecting on “nice guys”, I’m thinking it’s the latter.”

The main argument with which so called “Nice Guys” are criticised by feminist is that “nobody ever owes anybody else sex”. I fully agree with this principle, but I don’t belive that many sex positive feminists really agree with this statement and all its consequences. To strengthen my point I will give some of several feminists, which, while they indicate disagreement with the above statement, didn’t get much pushback.
1.”I’m mostly in the Jaclyn Friedman camp of sexual ethics: Everyone is fully entitled to boundaries, and sex acts should be consented to enthusiastically, not agreed to grudgingly. But I’m also a Dan Savage sympathizer, insofar as he argues we’re also entitled to sexual pleasure…”
2.”I’m mostly in the Jaclyn Friedman camp of sexual ethics: Everyone is fully entitled to boundaries, and sex acts should be consented to enthusiastically, not agreed to grudgingly. But I’m also a Dan Savage sympathizer, insofar as he argues we’re also entitled to sexual pleasure ave a 100% right to be like, “That is some misogynist bullshit right there, …” ”
3.”And frankly, I’ve been on the dude’s end of things-being flirted with shamelessly for a long time, and then when I tried to get the situation to happen (i.e. sex Jupp), told…”I don’t feel that way about you.” Should that man have manipulated the situation? No, it means he was a jerk interested in toying with me.”
4.”And there were some emotional boundaries he simply wouldn’t respect. … Want some examples? Here’s a blatant one: he never went down on me, though I regularly went down on him; he never even offered to try and figure out something else I might enjoy equally.”
Why isn’t there a discussion of the entitlement of “Female Sex-Positive Feminists”?

I am sorry I messed up my second quote, here is the correct one:
2.”Does a dude have a 100% right to be like, “I don’t like giving oral sex, and that is a boundary for me and I won’t do it”? Yes. Without some relatively good reason for why he doesn’t like oral sex (other than “it’s gross”), do women who enjoy receiving oral sex have a 100% right to be like, “That is some misogynist bullshit right there,…”

You don’t need a reason to not engage in a certain sex act. Furthermore ANY reason is a good reason to not engage in a sex act. I thought this was feminism 101. What kind of fucked up individual thinks that you need a “good reason” to not perform a certain sex act?

People (women/feminists) who their whole life have heard that there is no way they can be sexual abusers and who suddenly finds themselves in the situation that they are being called out when they do the same thing they’ve criticized men for doing. So they start to defend their own behavior oblivious of the cognitive dissonance.

Earlier when male victims of rape and DV were dismissed by feminists as something that didn’t happen, or something that happened so seldom that there was no point in paying attention to the issue it were sort of explainable by their ignorance of how and of how prevalent it was.

Numbers are continuing to come in and can no longer be suppressed and it turns out the prevalence of male victims and female perpetrators of both DV, rape and sexual abuse is much much larger than previously thought. When male victims now are dismissed by feminists and double standards towards male consent is applied by feminists ignorance is no longer an excuse and any double standards, rape-apologies and disregards for men’s right to have their non-consent respected is judged as exactly that.

The whole “no one is entitled to sex” argument is hypocritical, since bad boys and alphas (upper 20% of male sociosexual hierarchy) as well as most women(including ugly/fat ones) ARE entitled to “free” sex, and can have as much as they can handle. Only nice guys and betas are supposed to be “not entitled” to sex, and “pay” (via dates, relationships, marriage, etc) if they are to get any sex at all.

The redpill truth we all know is that feminism is not an egalitarian movement, but a socially darwinistic one which uses egalitarianism as a cover. Feminism is Game for women and alphas, rooted in hypergamy and betaphobia. Schwyzer uses feminism as his platform to make himself important/famous/alpha – to increase his n-count and thus his sociosexual market value over other men. The “hot, young pussy” he claims no one is entitled to – he himself is entitled to. He used his female students as his personal harem, banged them on his desk, etc. But of course, he’s viewed as an alpha bad boy by women, so he can do whatever he wants.

The way women/feminists see it, nice guys/betas have low sociosexual market value, and thus are very dangerous because they want something (sex) that women fundamentally do not want to give to them. All betas are rapists in their minds, and the feminist rules are designed to screen them out of the mating game, and ultimately the gene pool. Female sexual selection in action.

“The whole “no one is entitled to sex” argument is hypocritical, since bad boys and alphas (upper 20% of male sociosexual hierarchy) as well as most women(including ugly/fat ones) ARE entitled to “free” sex, and can have as much as they can handle.”

Sounds very much like the 21st century version of “Let them eat cake.”

Mis-Attributions aside, the sentiment from the slutbag feminists carries the same weight. Those that feed at the trough of gluttony are oblivious to the starvation (human need for intimacy) by the ‘peons’ around them. Well if they can’t have bread (not entitled to sex) let them eat cake (go get a prostitute or jerk off)

Feminists and slut culture are inching ever closer to the day when they suddenly wake up and find their necks in the guillotine while the peasants cheer on their executions, munching on bread while they watch.

The whole “no one is entitled to sex” argument is hypocritical, since bad boys and alphas (upper 20% of male sociosexual hierarchy) as well as most women(including ugly/fat ones) ARE entitled to “free” sex, and can have as much as they can handle. Only nice guys and betas are supposed to be “not entitled” to sex, and “pay” (via dates, relationships, marriage, etc) if they are to get any sex at all.

The entitlement argument is a red herring. Everyone who is interested in sex wants to have sex and feels that they should not be prevented from doing so. Likewise, those people also want to have sex with the person or people they like. This is normal human behavior, and it is something that most critics of men have little problem with when it comes to women. I cannot think of any time that I have seen, heard, or read a prominent feminist question the scores of articles, books, and TV shows suggesting that women are entitled to the sexual and physical relationships they want to have. Oprah made herself wealthy pushing that attitude. It is only when men complain about not being able to find sexual partners that it becomes “entitlement”.

It seems common for feminists like Schwyzer to mistake a normal human desire for “entitlement”, and I suspect that is because of the ideology that drives them. They simply cannot fathom why men would want to have sex for any reason other than abject control of women.

Feminism, sluts, and hookup culture have destroyed the rules of assortive mating, allowed women to go feral, fuck with impunity, hypergamy unleashed, pareto principle, 20% men hot, 80% invisible, all women vying to fuck the top guy, a sea of incel and low count men at the bottom never getting a chance to have a relationship during their formative years.

Because you’re not entitled to sex or relationships you unattractive man.

Do you think any of the suffering that’s happening amongst incel and low count men would be happening pre-feminism with assortive mating, women connecting and dating men within their sex rank, not shooting for super unrealistic expectations of looks and wealth and power and status and bringing nothing to the table but their pussy and a complete failure to understand what it means to be a feminine woman worthy of committing to?

I don’t know about the rest of your tactless comment, but that part has been on my mind these past few years of involuntary loneliness. That the default dating style these days is “hookup”, even among people who claim to want a long-term relationship, really bugs me too. I’ve gotten into a few arguments with women on OkCupid about this because I created a couple related questions. I forget how the questions went (deleted my profile), but one was something like “I stop looking for other people to date after: (a) first date (b) intercourse (c) blah…” According to the women who picked arguments with me because they could tell what I was getting at, I’ve learned it’s possible to date multiple people (2nd date with Bob Friday, 3rd date with Jimmy Saturday, 1st date planned Sunday with Mark, etc), and still call yourself a monogamous person after a serious long-term relationship. The logic of the three or four women I argued this with is that you have to ask her to be “exclusive”. Yet somehow they still call themselves monogamous and serious. Basically, I’m a misogynist who wants to control women’s sexuality because I kinda expect them to be monogamous when they say they are…

Myself, I want a wife, kids, house, career, grandkids, 50 year anniversary, big yard, family vacations, a partner in life, grow old together, etc. You don’t get that by hooking up. A serious person such as myself would have to be stupid to invest in you if you’re dating other people while claiming to be serious about long-term. That makes as much sense as hiring an active pedophile to babysit because he promises he’ll be good. “You know it’s wrong because you don’t tell the guys that they’re not the only one!”, is generally what I say at the peak of these arguments, and they give up or start projecting on me as some sort of prude.

I don’t do hookups. I would be a hypocrite if I did. It’s like saying you’d love to quit smoking, but you can’t let the 12 packs you just bought go to waste… These people are essentially polyamorous, but even worse, because they don’t even have the decency to inform the people they’re dating, and they’re deluding each one by claiming to be serious and leading them on to believe they’re the only one. They do it so they look like a good investment. Since most people are into hookup culture these days, and they’re not fucking beta nice guys like me anyway, it generally works out for them. Hookup culture thrives. After recently reading the classic novel Brave New World, where hookups and class systems run out of control, I get the impression that maybe I was wrong, and hookup culture really is the default, and always has been.

My conscience prevents me from having hookups. So do my goals. What do I get for being a nice guy who doesn’t spit game at women or treat them like fuck toys? Nothing. Literally. I’ve always been disgusted by players and pick-up-artists, but lately I’ve been thinking they’re the smart ones. They get what they want, and women give it to them. I just can’t bring myself to give up my goals and integrity, even though I know I probably should. It’s naive to think I’ll find love with a woman who also wants monogamy and adores the idea of growing old together; partners in life. But I’m a nice guy, and still hopeful…

I’m glad my tactless comment has brought about some form of self reflection and awakening.

Riddle me this..

You want to find a woman to love, who wants monogamy, be partners in life and grow old with you.

What your asking is you wish for a woman who will love you, remain faithful only to you, stay with you and die with you.

What are you offering her to do this?

(ps-your view of game is ass backwards. it’s a tool. it can be used like a butter knife. to efficiently spread butter, or to murder someone. pick-up is for some men, not all. i don’t denigrate it, likewise i don’t denigrate men who want real emotional relationships with women. you calibrate the essence of game for your needs. game is about knowing how to make yourself attractive. nothing more. what you do with it once you achieve being attractive is up to you. if you try pick up and you’re not the nihilist type.. and you succeed in pump n dump, you’re soul will still be empty. but your dismissal of game is wrong.)

But then it makes little sense to call it “slut” culture since many men do the same thing, and since “slut” is a gendered word.

Feminism, sluts, and hookup culture have destroyed the rules of assortive mating, allowed women to go feral, fuck with impunity, hypergamy unleashed, pareto principle, 20% men hot, 80% invisible, all women vying to fuck the top guy, a sea of incel and low count men at the bottom never getting a chance to have a relationship during their formative years.

I think anytime you start an argument by claiming that people “go feral” you are setting yourself up to fail. Coincidentally, most feral mammals do not have sex with anything that moves. Those primates that do have sex with multiple partners actually use it as a method of socializing, so it serves a purpose.

Do you think any of the suffering that’s happening amongst incel and low count men would be happening pre-feminism with assortive mating, women connecting and dating men within their sex rank, not shooting for super unrealistic expectations of looks and wealth and power and status and bringing nothing to the table but their pussy and a complete failure to understand what it means to be a feminine woman worthy of committing to?

Of course the same situation would happen. Or do you think that all men at every social level always got women? The notion that prior to feminism women dated all men is nonsense. Men and women have always been choosey with their sex partners, and men who did not meet the social preference were often left without dates or mates. The only way that this was avoided in older times was through arranged marriages, yet even then the men who came from families with little or no wealth had a problem.

As for some women “bringing nothing to the table but their pussy and a complete failure to understand what it means to be a feminine woman worthy of committing to”, I will agree that there are plenty of women who feel entitled to wealth and privilege and think they must do nothing to get it. I will also agree that plenty of women do not think they must do anything to prove themselves worthy of the attention they want. However, when you use the language that you chose, you actually make feminists’ point for them. Your comments are sexist, and I believe deliberately so. That hurts your argument because it shows that you are less concerned about fixing the problem and more concerned about venting your anger.

May I suggest to Toy Soldier that you look up “George Carlin on Soft Language” on YouTube? I don’t know if I completely agree with M3, but I certainly don’t agree with you in your last post here. (Here’s a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o25I2fzFGoY)